Economics of Globalization

Allison Terlizzi          

            The articles from this week discussed many of the issues that were brought up in the documentary, Maquilopolis. Women have been pushed into factory labor in developing countries and these authors gave insight on working conditions as well as the outlook of factory labor from the general population’s perspective. It was helpful to read about employment circumstances within specific factories as well because it helped me to understand who is doing the labor and what their conditions are like.

            The most interesting and perhaps relatable article this week was the one about gender in the labor force called, “From High Heels to Swathed Bodies: Gendered Meanings under Production in Mexico’s Export-Processing Industry”. There is much discussion in any working environment about how the job needs to be performed and what to expect from the employees and managers. In maquilas, or export-processing factories, gender categories have emerged, characterizing labor power. Females have traditionally been valued to work in factories as they have a docile nature and always followed orders. Once women started banding together they took on a sense of defiance, causing factories to employ male laborers as well, thus creating interesting gender dynamics among the laborers.

            At Panoptimex, labor control practices based on increasing the visibility of the workers created self-monitoring women and emasculated men. The women were sexualized and were evaluated on how they looked more then the quality of work they were doing. At Anarchomex, there is a high demand for female laborers and at this job they consider their laborers as inputs. There is poor supervision and workers seem to keep themselves in check, giving them a sense of labor control. The men therefore try to reestablish their masculinity by putting their women co-workers down. Lastly, at Androgymex, skill is the only thing that matters. The actual productiveness of the worker is what keeps them employed and paid. Work is delegated to each person and they have control over how much they get done because pay is based on what is accomplished. What I took away from this is that gender relations are becoming increasingly important for companies like these who have recently started employing men in their factories. To control how laborers behave, it is important to create a gender-neutral work environment like Androgynex where sexuality is “under wraps” and productivity is not measured by appearance.

            In the two short articles, “In Principle, a Case for Sweatshops” by Allen Myerson and “Where Sweatshops Are a Dream” by Nicholas Kristof the authors put sweatshops in a positive light, that almost makes me want to give people more opportunities to work. Myerson says that although we use sweatshops as a form of cheap labor that is essential for the prosperity of America, the markets in the developing world are too small to survive on their own and sustain the demands of the population. Another fact that stood out to me from this article was that in Indonesia “industrialization has reduced the portion of malnourished children from more than have in 1975 to a third today” (Myerson). How could factory labor, harsh work environments and serious environmental devastation contribute to the health of their citizens improve? Their economy was deeply affected by this because the living conditions were so poor to begin with. Tying into this, Kristof calls sweatshops the “escalator out of poverty”, and that sweatshops don’t cause poverty to emerge, but actually are a symptom of poverty (Kristof). One way to help countries in poverty is to encourage imports from those countries to boost the growth of their own local economies. In Diane Wolf’s article, “Linking Women’s Labor with the Global Economy: Factory Workers and their Families in Rural Java” she discusses female worker’s compensation and its effect on their families. She found that parent’s are subsidizing their wages and still remain responsible for their financial situations. Additionally, by working in factories the daughters provide a means of income that prevents their socioeconomic status of the family from decreasing further (Wolf, 44). This reminds me of how sweatshops are considered a safe haven compared to living in the streets so children are encouraged by their families to work in places like these.

            This week’s readings portrayed sweatshops and processing industries both as places of danger and turmoil, and alternatively as a part of society that helps the economy and individuals to get them out of poverty. After seeing what these factories look like in the documentary Maquilopolis and reading details of what the factories look like, I am not sure I believe that they are benefiting the countries they are placed in. While they may help the individual, they do not solve the bigger problem- boosting local economies of these third world nations.